Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: moot on September 15, 2004, 02:45:34 AM
-
Have sources indicating so.
need to go do something and will post when back.
-
A 90-round magazine was developed for the MG-FF - it could fit in the same space as it wasn't any bigger than the 60-round one, just more tightly packaged. I'm not sure when it became available but someone on another board posted late 1942.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
This thread (http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=324.topic) from LEMB (http://pub157.ezboard.com/bluftwaffeexperten71774) is the board Tony is referring to.
-
up
-
still doesnt worth taking those MGFFs on the A5 imho
-
This wouldn't change my choice to remove the MG/FFs at all.
Why would any of you want to keep them? Their ballistics are so different from the MG151/20s that in order to hit with both types of cannon you need to be within 100 yards and flying straight against a non-manuvering target.
The change should be made, but I don't know that many Fw190A-5 fliers will use it.
-
And the mk108 is that different?
If you're limited to A5 for some reason, 90 rounds would be quite a difference against large soft targets, or any soft close range target.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Why would any of you want to keep them? Their ballistics are so different from the MG151/20s that in order to hit with both types of cannon you need to be within 100 yards and flying straight against a non-manuvering target.
You mean like a bomber?
When I flew the 190s in AH I only ever took 2 x 20m (a8 as well) except when going after bombers.
At 240 yards in AH (IIRC) from our testing it took 20 MGFF rounds per kill (pre-AH2). This made the weight penalty verses the lethality gain offset and thus it was better not to take the MGFF.
The 190A5 should have a 30 round clip, and drums of 30, 60 and 90. The problem unique to AH (as opposed to rl) is that rounds like the MGFF and Type 99 Mk 1 are weak because of the way damage is assigned. It’s the same as WBs, and AW. Velocity at impact has a greater effect on damage then chemical energy.
Saying that above 250 yards an MGFF loses a large amount of lethality is nonsense. All it needs is enough velocity to penetrate the skin. Its chemical / explosives content doesn't change.
With most non HE / Mine rounds their destructive energy is linked to kinetic energy which is "used up" as it travels downrange .With MGFF/M and HE / Mine rounds in general their destructive energy is stored chemically so it's retains most of its lethality as it travels downrange.
The problem with the MGFF was that its low muzzle velocity made it harder to hit with (long flight time, more drop etc...)
I know you know all this but I couldn't pass on the opportunity to bring it up once more. :p
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1095982889_a2bisa5guns.jpg)
The FW-190A3 had the 90rpg magazines so I am sure they were available for the FW-190A5.
Crumpp
-
Yup the 90 round drum was the same size as the 60. If the 60 could fit so could the 90. The question is what date was the 90 introduced. I have read '42.
-
I have a test flight graph of the FW-190A3 showing 90rpg. The date is 29.11.42.
Crumpp
-
Would the dates matter that much?
If the 90round magazine was introduced in '42, and AH Fw190A-5 is a '43 plane, then I don't think there's any problem with it at all.
-
The dates only matter in the sense that we keep this at the top. :p
But more seriously the question of when will pop up should HT and crew decide to allow 90 rpg.